[Kona]

(05-03-2018 04:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  



It's funny how little folk know about history - the wall has already been built around our minds at schoo and with the help of media and entertainment.

...

But whatever - I am sure that CNN, Hollywood and your highschool history books tell you exactly like it is.

Zelcorpian, with all due respect, I'd like you get off the internet for today and go take a walk. Uncle Kona says you're grounded.

It is very clear that horrible things happened to the white kids in 1619. In fact, you posted a picture. Are there any videos you can put up, maybe off YouTube, of white people suffering horrible atrocities? Did any white slaves have instagram?

Probably not, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO FUCKING CAMERAS IN 1619!!!!

I love that line at the end of your little white slavery blurb with the disheveled white kids.

"History Denied, covered up, & marginalized" it would be hilarious if they added "and now available in HD"

Also, if you come back with some type of pinhole camera history to tell me that picture is real, I'm gonna jump off the bridge.

Aloha!

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Nah - the pic is not from that time - of course. The first book is the one which goes into detail. You can even find lists of prices of both black and white slaves. There are photos from the 19th century though before it was abolished.

The picture used is from a wrong time-line and these were likely not slave children - just poor white ones (would probably have to be in the Middle East to be slaves). The meme uses hyperbole and I did not intend to go into detail here. But it shows that the narrative is not as one-sided as one might think with history being more messy. That is all.

And again - the two blokes - I honestly hope that they got 20 mio. $+ out of it. It's just a loss in the culture war, but hey - the globalists are winning even with setbacks.

[nomadbrah]

Not going to get into this discussion, but nice find. It really is remarkable how what we think of as history is at best "based on a true story".

(05-03-2018 04:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 04:07 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 01:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

But it does not matter - the white guilt tripping Starbucks corporation will gladly pay reparations of any sum to alleviate their guilt. Better than than to research the fact that the first 500.000 slaves were white in the US - most of them sold by Jewish slave traders.

Wow, this thread just keeps on delivering.

White people sue, they get a settlement. Black people sue its called reparations. In fact, black people should not be able to sue at all, because the first slaves were white. Black people need to stop taking all the slavery cred.

I think we need to build a wall around Zelcorpians keyboard.

Aloha!

It's funny how little folk know about history - the wall has already been built around our minds at schoo and with the help of media and entertainment.

You could even find old price lists for white and black slaves. At times black slaves were worth 10 times more and slave owners ordered race-mixing to get more black slaves out of it. Some states then enacted race-mixing prohibitions in order to not dilute the prices of their black slave stock - dilute with the cheaper white slave stock.

But whatever - I am sure that CNN, Hollywood and your highschool history books tell you exactly like it is.

[Repo]

(05-03-2018 05:34 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Not going to get into this discussion, but nice find. It really is remarkable how what we think of as history is at best "based on a true story".

(05-03-2018 04:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 04:07 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 01:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

But it does not matter - the white guilt tripping Starbucks corporation will gladly pay reparations of any sum to alleviate their guilt. Better than than to research the fact that the first 500.000 slaves were white in the US - most of them sold by Jewish slave traders.

Wow, this thread just keeps on delivering.

White people sue, they get a settlement. Black people sue its called reparations. In fact, black people should not be able to sue at all, because the first slaves were white. Black people need to stop taking all the slavery cred.

I think we need to build a wall around Zelcorpians keyboard.

Aloha!

It's funny how little folk know about history - the wall has already been built around our minds at schoo and with the help of media and entertainment.

You could even find old price lists for white and black slaves. At times black slaves were worth 10 times more and slave owners ordered race-mixing to get more black slaves out of it. Some states then enacted race-mixing prohibitions in order to not dilute the prices of their black slave stock - dilute with the cheaper white slave stock.

But whatever - I am sure that CNN, Hollywood and your highschool history books tell you exactly like it is.

My understanding was that the Irish were indentured servants. Which is still horrible, but not something passed onto your dependents and not lifelong. Here's a source:

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/ir...-myth.html

Maybe refute in a new thread, were kind of off topic.

[Repo]

Delete

[Kona]

(05-03-2018 05:34 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< Nah - the pic is not from that time - of course.

Wow. A Meme designed to highlight the fact that history has been "Denied, covered up, & marginalized" actually uses a picture that denies, covers up, and marginalizes history.

Thats fighting fire with fire.

Aloha!

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-03-2018 06:44 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:34 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

< Nah - the pic is not from that time - of course.

Wow. A Meme designed to highlight the fact that history has been "Denied, covered up, & marginalized" actually uses a picture that denies, covers up, and marginalizes history.

Thats fighting fire with fire.

Aloha!

That's quick meme-wars-2018. The data is in the book I linked.

And no - it was not indentured servitude. The contracts at times were so oppressive that your children also were de-facto slaves. There were plenty of whites who were actually called slaves.

But never mind - I am not fighting here for anything. I am interested in truth and not any racial narrative. We live in times where they tell you stories of how a ragtag team of towel-heads tricked the entire military defense system of the US and flew around in massive commercial jets for hours only to slam into two huge concrete-steel bunkers. Those concrete steel bunkers after a short fire collapsed on itself in a heap of dust. Oh - and one plane supposedly slammed into the pentagon with a flight-path that marveled the best combat jets - all without even leaving much trace after again slamming into a concrete bunker. And that is truth just as Libya was led by a terrible dictator which resulted in the highest living standard in North Africa. But it was much better to have come, to have killed that evil dictator so that slaves would be sold in that country again. That is what will be written in the history books and if they clean up the internet in the future, then that will be all that will be standing. And this is young history - never mind old history. You really have to take a look at Carroll Quigley - the mentor of Bill Clinton.

History is written by the victors - not by truth.

As far as I am concerned then cosmic justice reincarnates you as a slave master and then as a slave the next life. That is true justice.

That our loving elite would not share this little tidbit of history with the most evil oppressors who worked 80-90 hours workweeks in the mines and factories and had worse lives than in the 15th century - well that does not surprise me. And I am not denying any horrors of black slavery here - just adding the fact that the pinks were enslaved too.

Peace out - Starbucks paid up. Guys made good money. We won't find out what really happened in that Starbucks - but I can guess what all of this will lead to.

And it still goes on around the world while it is being ignored and denied by black leaders like Farrakhan and the white liberal progressives.

[HornyRamone]

(05-03-2018 06:21 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 05:34 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Not going to get into this discussion, but nice find. It really is remarkable how what we think of as history is at best "based on a true story".

(05-03-2018 04:40 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 04:07 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 01:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

But it does not matter - the white guilt tripping Starbucks corporation will gladly pay reparations of any sum to alleviate their guilt. Better than than to research the fact that the first 500.000 slaves were white in the US - most of them sold by Jewish slave traders.

Wow, this thread just keeps on delivering.

White people sue, they get a settlement. Black people sue its called reparations. In fact, black people should not be able to sue at all, because the first slaves were white. Black people need to stop taking all the slavery cred.

I think we need to build a wall around Zelcorpians keyboard.

Aloha!

It's funny how little folk know about history - the wall has already been built around our minds at schoo and with the help of media and entertainment.

You could even find old price lists for white and black slaves. At times black slaves were worth 10 times more and slave owners ordered race-mixing to get more black slaves out of it. Some states then enacted race-mixing prohibitions in order to not dilute the prices of their black slave stock - dilute with the cheaper white slave stock.

But whatever - I am sure that CNN, Hollywood and your highschool history books tell you exactly like it is.

My understanding was that the Irish were indentured servants. Which is still horrible, but not something passed onto your dependents and not lifelong. Here's a source:

"The legal differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery were profound, according to Matthew Reilly, an archaeologist who studies Barbados. Unlike slaves, servants were considered legally human. Their servitude was based on a contract that limited their service to a finite period of time, usually about seven years, in exchange for passage to the colonies. They did not pass their unfree status on to descendants."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/ir...-myth.html

Maybe refute in a new thread, were kind of off topic.

Black slavery in America wasn't lifelong either.

[debeguiled]

To be fair to Zel, it was Kona who brought up white slaves first, and then asked Zel what white slaves had to do with anything.

Not that this is news to my boy Kona.

This is his hobby.

He is good at it.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I have no beef with Kona.

I would be content living as a white minority in his Hawaiian ethno-state and being silent about "muh-white-slavery".

[debeguiled]

(05-04-2018 03:58 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I have no beef with Kona.

I would be content living as a white minority in his Hawaiian ethno-state and being silent about "muh-white-slavery".

This is no fun.

Ask you know who.

[realologist]

(05-04-2018 03:58 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I have no beef with Kona.

I would be content living as a white minority in his Hawaiian ethno-state and being silent about "muh-white-slavery".

What about spam?

[Teutatis]

(05-03-2018 04:07 PM)Kona Wrote:  

White people sue, they get a settlement. Black people sue its called reparations. In fact, black people should not be able to sue at all, because the first slaves were white. Black people need to stop taking all the slavery cred.

You're mixing a bunch of things, any black person has every right to sue if he or she has been wronged in some way, independently of whites, browns or reds having been slaves first or last, but when black people sue on the basis of bullshit stunts like these and not a real reason and win, they win not on the merits of their case but due to the current white guilt and "whites are evil", "blacks are pure oppressed eternal victims of whites" zeitgeist that pervades our culture. When white people sue for whatever reason they can't rely on the race card to win as blacks and other non white groups can, so they will win or lose on the merits of their case, not because some multinational would rather pay some black guy than face the publicity, that's the difference. The truth is that blacks can do whatever fuck they want, cry racism after and pocket some of that delicious white guilt money afterwards. This state of affairs is not good for our culture or anyone.

[rudebwoy]

What does white slavery have to do with two black kids getting booted out of a Starbucks.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-04-2018 11:10 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

What does white slavery have to do with two black kids getting booted out of a Starbucks.

[Ice Man]

(05-04-2018 11:10 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

What does white slavery have to do with two black kids getting booted out of a Starbucks.

Better question-

What does b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶ w̶h̶i̶t̶e̶ any slavery have to do with two b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶ k̶i̶d̶s̶ men getting booted out of a Starbucks?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

[url=https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/994957942578442240][/url]

Starbucks = Free Public Toilet.

I am all for it - they would likely have to hire a bigger cleaning crew and will make less of a profit. Or their toilets will descend into piss-and shit-ridden hellholes costing them even more business. This free public service is indeed a noble gesture by a big corporation.

[DJ-Matt]

I have heard that new-construction Starbucks locations are getting bathrooms where the sink is OUTSIDE in the public view, probably to keep bums from washing up. I assume this will be something they'll retrofit to their more shithole-y locations in the future?

[beta_plus]

(05-13-2018 02:27 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

I have heard that new-construction Starbucks locations are getting bathrooms where the sink is OUTSIDE in the public view, probably to keep bums from washing up. I assume this will be something they'll retrofit to their more shithole-y locations in the future?

Weird. This was a very common (though not omnipresent) arrangement for public bathrooms when I was in Chengdu, China last month. There were separate toilets for men and women, but the sinks were in a common area connecting the men and women areas.

I figure that it's probably an anti-bums measure, but part of me does wonder if it's just the new fad.

[debeguiled]

(05-13-2018 02:27 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

I have heard that new-construction Starbucks locations are getting bathrooms where the sink is OUTSIDE in the public view, probably to keep bums from washing up. I assume this will be something they'll retrofit to their more shithole-y locations in the future?

This will not stop them. They don't care if people watch.

[Sandstorm]

I think I'm gonna go and take a really messy, massive shite all over a Starbucks toilet, try to miss a little bit if I can....

...literally, just for shits n' giggles.

[Thot Leader]

This pretty well sums it up. I'd love to say something like this publicly but unfortunately I'm white and thus not allowed:

[HornyRamone]

(05-13-2018 04:49 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 02:27 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

I have heard that new-construction Starbucks locations are getting bathrooms where the sink is OUTSIDE in the public view, probably to keep bums from washing up. I assume this will be something they'll retrofit to their more shithole-y locations in the future?

This will not stop them. They don't care if people watch.

That's great news. The sight of bums freshening up will drive away more paying customers. Before you know it, Starbucks will become a public bath house for miscreants and the newly arrived third world. The icing on the cake is the executives won't complain because they're cuckolded by muh diversity.

[Kona]

(05-14-2018 09:22 PM)HornyRamone Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 04:49 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 02:27 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

I have heard that new-construction Starbucks locations are getting bathrooms where the sink is OUTSIDE in the public view, probably to keep bums from washing up. I assume this will be something they'll retrofit to their more shithole-y locations in the future?

This will not stop them. They don't care if people watch.

That's great news. The sight of bums freshening up will drive away more paying customers. Before you know it, Starbucks will become a public bath house for miscreants and the newly arrived third world. The icing on the cake is the executives won't complain because they're cuckolded by muh diversity.

The executives won't complain because they know fat white bitches hooked on sugar need their iced vanilla frappucinos.

You think a bum washing his balls is gonna keep Becky from showing her friends how cool she is for ordering coffee on her iPhone? Or instagramming her pumpkin spice latte? Hell no.

Aloha!

[Thot Leader]

(05-14-2018 09:59 PM)Kona Wrote:  

You think a bum washing his balls is gonna keep Becky from showing her friends how cool she is for ordering coffee on her iPhone? Or instagramming her pumpkin spice latte? Hell no.

It will when she can go to the coffee place across the street and get equally good coffee and not deal with bums. This move is gonna hurt Starcucks, and I say, good. Opportunities for less retarded/faggy SJW coffee cos to gain ground.